World champions??

Discussion in 'Sports' started by Dennisch, Feb 6, 2011.

  1. spiker

    spiker

    Messages:
    353
    The United States does not recognize the Cricket World Cup Champions as World Champions because cricket hasn't sufficiently penetrated the interest of the world.
     
  2. DKLion3s

    DKLion3s

    Messages:
    295
    So you basically saying it's a cycle. It is what it is. And I would have to say Cricket has penetrated more than the MLB. True or false?
     
  3. spiker

    spiker

    Messages:
    353
    4 of the 5 most populated countries in the world did not send teams to the Cricket World Cup in 2007. The Chinese team didn't even try to qualify, probably because they were so new.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Cricket_World_Cup

    Only 3 of the 5 most populated countries did not send a team to the World Baseball Classic in 2009.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_World_Baseball_Classic

    What do you think? I think the rest of the world should not recognize the Cricket World Cup Champion as the World Champion.

    I also think racism has prevented the Chinese from picking up cricket before this past decade.
     
  4. DKLion3s

    DKLion3s

    Messages:
    295

    So, now you're dodging questions? I have already stated my personal stance in my response to you here:-


    It applies in all cases, no exceptions!
     
  5. Ardius

    Ardius

    Messages:
    10,373
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Quite simply because US sports get far more coverage outside of the US than non-US sports get in the US.

    Personally I would go with the definition that a team or persons can be considered World Champions if the competition they are in is open to any nationality. However, I do feel its a little hollow to claim such a title when there aren't many international clubs/teams/whatever competing. However, there are championships out there that are open to any nationality but are purely domestic series and you wouldn't really consider winners as "world champions"..e.g.British F3. So quite a complex term really.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2011
  6. Pupik

    Pupik Staff Emeritus

    Messages:
    17,633
    Location:
    United States
    There is a little bit of silliness and aggrandizing when calling anything a World Champion. It just pertains to those open to a specific competition (a series of them); there might be a driver from Indonesia who could blow the doors off a Sebastian Vettel or Sebastian Loeb or Jimmy Johnson, but they are not in the same series of events. Or someone from Russia with the fitness, mental acuity, and natural ability to be a Super Bowl-winning quarterback...but we just haven't "found" them yet. So there has to be a cut-off somewhere.

    But on the other hand (as has been pointed out), we're not big on begrudging anyone else's World Championships...I mean, so as long as a competition in the name of sport doesn't specifically include a boycott of a country's competitors (rather than a nation's rulers forbidding international competition), then it is fully open to calling itself World Championship. Sport should transcend politics whenever possible.
     
  7. Dennisch

    Dennisch Premium

    Messages:
    26,981
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Since this has become a somewhat relevant discussion again thanks to a low bridge, and @Pupik reminding me this thread exists :lol: we can go on!

    I have a solution for the NFL world champions dilemma.

    In football, as in kicking a ball, there is the world championship for clubs. This can also be played for American Football. Take the Superbowl winner, take the Eurobowl winner, throw them onto a pitch surrounded by stands and voila. Winner is World Champion.
     
    daan likes this.
  8. daan

    daan Moderator

    Messages:
    33,232
    Location:
    Scotland
    I was going to respond to this whole post, but when I read that sentence, I thought, "What's the point?"

    I give up. Have your delusions.
     
    Jimlaad43 and Luke like this.
  9. Dennisch

    Dennisch Premium

    Messages:
    26,981
    Location:
    Netherlands
    The point is, that having a multiculti sports competition warrants the winner of said competition the Status of World Champion.

    Thus every single football league champion in Europe becomes World Champion.

    I think.
     
  10. Omnis

    Omnis Staff Emeritus

    Messages:
    37,952
    Location:
    United States
    Have my delusions? Go raise up a "world" league to compete with the NFL and the NBA. The closest you're going to get to satisfy your silly conditions is in Baseball with the NPB and the Latin American leagues. But, guess what? They're feeder leagues for the Majors. You play championship-caliber baseball there, and maybe you can compete in the MLB.

    Sorry to burst your nationalistic bubble. Super Bowl Champions, NBA Champions, and World Series Champions are all de facto world champs. Inter-"national" champions? No, but that isn't even a thing since there is no international play. Get over it.
     
  11. daan

    daan Moderator

    Messages:
    33,232
    Location:
    Scotland
    And I think you'll find that the bit you put in italics (and I've bolded as italics don't show up in quotes) is our point. Would be world champions if there was an actual championship for it, but aren't world champions because there isn't an actual world championship for it.
     
    Jimlaad43 likes this.
  12. Omnis

    Omnis Staff Emeritus

    Messages:
    37,952
    Location:
    United States
    Your point doesn't make any sense. If there is no question that the champions are the best of a league for which no other competition exists in the world, then by god they're world champions.

    Put aside the silly nationalism. The world is made up of people, not nations.